Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates employee.

O R D E R

(ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a) Set aside the dismissal order N0.320-430/HAP(P-II)/P&L, dated 19.02.2015,

b) passed by disciplinary authority i.e. D.C.P. Provisioning & Logistic, Delhi; Set aside the order of Appellant Authority· vide order N0.68/P-Sec. (Appeal)/SPL.C.P./P&L, dated 19.04.2016;

c) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant benefits.with all consequential

d) Any other order/direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing a counter-reply, wherein they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. with cost.

3. The applicant has filed a rejoinder, reiterating his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

4. Earlier, the O.A. was allowed by this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 20.07.2022, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and with liberty to the respondents to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant in accordance with law. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15073/2022. The said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order/judgment dated 20.03.2024. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order/judgment dated 20.07.2022 and remanded the O.A. to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. While remanding the matter back to this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court also expected this Tribunal to deal with the reasons furnished by the petitioners for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. Thus, the O.A. has come before this Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the basis of merit.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings available on record and various judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels with their assistance.

6. Undisputed facts are that the applicant, while working as Constable (Executive), was on one day’s CL for 19.08.2013, with th th permission to avail prefix and suffix of 17 –18 .08.2013 and 20.08.2013 being gazetted holiday, and was due to be back on duty on 21.08.2013, but he did not resume his duty on that date and was marked absent on 24.08.2013. An absentee notice dated 03.09.2013 was also issued to him, which was delivered at his residence. The official who was deputed to deliver the said notice reported that the applicant was not found at his residence in spite of his repeated efforts. Accordingly, he had to serve the said notice upon the applicant’s father. Even thereafter, he made efforts to find the applicant, but he could not find him. It is also reported by him that he gave in writing that, due to a quarrel with neighbors, his son’s name has been mentioned in one case FIR dated 23.08.2012, being FIR No. 194/2013 u/s 147/148/149/323/504/302 IPC and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, at PS Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar (UttarPradesh) lodged at the behest of the villagers of the applicant. On inquiry, it was found that the applicant was named as one of the accused in the said case FIR. Subsequently, the SHO, Police Station Anoopshahar, vide his report No. Nil dated 28.05.2014, has intimated that